Robert Ringer is a New York Times No. 1 best-selling author and host of the highly acclaimed "Liberty Education Interview Series," which features interviews with top political, economic and social leaders. His latest book is "The Entrepreneur." To sign up for a free subscription to his pro-liberty, pro-free-market e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, CLICK HERE.More ↓Less ↑
And so, my fellow Americans, here we are once again on the verge of yet another Robespierrian revolution. “Off with their heads!” shouts the mastermind of the Great Obamapression. “The problem with our economy,” he insists, “is to be found in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Switzerland.” And millions of people are buying into his claim!
When the lessons of history so clearly demonstrate that redistribution of wealth always ends badly for a nation, what could possibly motivate so many people to ignore such clear evidence? I believe the answer is to be found in an acronym I like to refer to as GAVEAD (guilt, arrogance, victimization, envy, anger, demonization).
These human character flaws are powerful drivers that cause people to act on emotion rather than logic or morality – which has often led to bloody revolutions. But I know of no place or time in history when GAVEAD-inspired revolutions achieved a better, freer life for anyone who was not part of the ruling elite.
In this article, I will address the GAVEAD factor that most annoys me, guilt. Guilt is a mental condition often found in wealthy people. Many of these people, though not all, did not acquire their fortunes through their own efforts.
The Kennedys and Rockefellers are good examples of guilt-ridden heirs to fortunes. Even today, the decadent descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy and John D. Rockefeller are among the biggest advocates of wealth redistribution.
From a psychological point of view, it’s not hard to understand why someone who has lived in luxury all his life, without ever having to do any real work, would be immersed in guilt. I get it. But the problem is that such people often want to assuage their guilt feelings by redistributing your wealth to those they deem to be “in need.”
From Bobby to Teddy, and now in some of their most vile progeny, we see this phenomenon again and again. Because these people have no idea what it’s like to start and run a business, meet a payroll, and fight to keep afloat despite excessive taxation and regulation, it is understandable why they cannot relate to the entrepreneur.
What is not as easy to understand, however, is how people who have built great fortunes through their own efforts end up feeling guilty about their wealth. In this regard, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner and Bill Gates come quickly to mind. How, you might wonder, can such great wealth creators be intimidated into feeling guilty about their great contributions to society?
Much of the credit for that feat goes to a far-left media that no longer reports the news, but instead works to champion anti-capitalist causes and induce guilt in those who have been successful. In this regard, no sooner had Ronald Reagan left office, his successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, immediately started blathering about change, thereby beating Barack Obama to the punch by some 20 years.
When I say immediately, I’m talking about Bush’s inauguration address. That was when he first made an appeal for Americans to join in an effort to create a “kinder, gentler nation” – a catchphrase the media gleefully jumped on.
Never mind the fact that nations can be neither kind nor gentle. Only people can be kind or gentle – as well as nasty and harsh. But by implying that Americans were not kind and gentle, Bush was also implying that they needed politicians to help them be so.
For centuries, the far left, aspiring to authoritarian rule, had been lying in wait for Americans to display any sign of weakness that would open the door for them to remake society in their own image. They hid behind such words as “liberalism” and “progressivism” because they realized that the only way they could attain and hold onto power was to camouflage their true objectives. Words like socialism, Marxism and communism have always been verboten.
For decades, Republican enablers have allowed their Democratic pals to make up the rules of the game. Their mantra has long been: “We must show Democrats we are reasonable, civil people who are willing to ‘reach across the aisle’ and ‘compromise.’” In other words, their desire for popularity trumps morality.
Finally, in 2001, with the country still reeling from Father George’s kinder, gentler nation talk, along came Son George, who, immediately after taking office, started blathering about a weird abstraction he called “compassionate conservatism.” RINOs seem to have an uncontrollable propensity toward guilt – and economic suicide.
Of course, there’s some pragmatism involved in all this nonsense as well. Most politicians believe that the only way they can get elected, and re-elected, is to prove they are compassionate. But the truth is the term compassionate conservatism is a redundancy, because true conservatism is compassionate.
Enough said. My message to the next class of tea-party favorites who will be coming into the Den of Thieves on Capitol Hill next January, presumably to protect Americans from the guilt-laced rhetoric of either Bad News Barry or RobotRom:
America doesn’t need another Democratic Party. The one it has is already bankrupting and enslaving us. What it needs is a party that will stand up for freedom, and that is possible only if its members refuse to give in to unfounded feelings of guilt and abide by the Constitution.
Compassion is a wonderful trait, but not when it calls for the use of force to redistribute wealth. Is there anyone reading this who might be in a position to sit down with RobotRom and explain all this to him – just in case he wins?